Thursday, September 25, 2008

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Response to, part 1

14 Ellul 5768

The following is part one of a translation of the extensive response by Rabbi Ido Elba, Rosh Kollel - Cave of the Patriarchs Kollel, Hevron, to (27 Iyar 5768). is a site which was set up in an attempt to defend the various actions of Shlomo Aviner.

The original in Hebrew can be viewed here on


I will preface by stating that I am the husband of one of the women who has complained about Aviner, about five years ago. And I served against Aviner a suit handled by six different rabbinical courts (due to Aviner's evasiveness) which disagreed with the resolutions brought on the site.

Recently, Aviner established a new site in which he tries to respond to that which is brought on the site (Hebrew). In spite of the fact that it is not mentioned that he is the author, this is understood, because all of the letters brought there are the letters which were sent to him personally. And all of the explanations to the facts are things which were not brought about him all other evidence only his explanation.

I have already written in one of the responses more than what there is to learn than from what is written there, there is to learn from there from what is not written, because this is clear that about the things that one does not write he does not have even reliability of an answer.

1. He does not at all address the tape that is brought on the site in which he permits looking at nude pictures - he has nothing to say.

2. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a pregnant woman about blood that she saw the color does not contaminate and also what she continues to see will not contaminate {Here he does not know what she will continue to see} - he has nothing to respond.

3. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a nursing women about the blood that she sees is pure because a nursing woman does not have any menstrual blood. He has nothing to answer.

4. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a woman after a miscarriage that she is clean because it's just a "little" blood - he has nothing to say.

5. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a young couple about virgin blood that does not contaminate, because it's just a wound - regarding this, he has nothing to answer.

6. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a ruling of the Jerusalem rabbinical court which determined that he is one who refuses [to attend the Bet Din], and it is forbidden to ask him anything nor to give credence to his opinions - he has nothing to say.

7. Thus, he does not at all address the evidence that he said to a ruling of the rabbinical court which has determined that he purposefully obstructs, and that it is forbidden to read from his books. Those who have signed this include Rabbi Ya'qov Yosef, Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi Karelitz supports this. Recently the ruling that was publicized even included the head of the Jerusalem Area Bet Din Rabbi Avraham Kalev (and who worded the letter), and Rabbi Eliakim Levanon. Rabbi Shmu'el Tal, and the rabbi of the moshav Nachalim, and other rabbis have signed it - he has nothing to answer. (Even if one assumes that it is actually because of the letter this new website of his supporters was established)

Also, if all of what Aviner has written on his new website was 100% correct, these things to which he does not answer at all would actually be enough for any intelligent man to separate himself from him, to remove his books and articles from his house, and he would not dare go to him with any question regarding Jewish observance. Also, if someone had a rabbi who taught him another it is forbidden for him to listen to him, according to what we have clarified in our articles presented on about trust in hachamim with regard to a rabbi who says that right is left.

a. On the issue of the prohibition against lashon hara, Aviner brings the ruling of the Area Bet Din of Marheshvan 5766

1) In spite of the fact that Aviner himself claims that he knows who authored the booklet [of information related to the diyun against him] on, The Area Bet Din did not invite anyone to the proceedings regarding this issue. It is possible to see this in the decision itself in which only the name of the petitioner was written (his representative Mittleman came), and not any second party. As such, according to halachah, there is no validity to the Bet Din's decision, nor to the decision of Rabbi Eliyahu (if Rabbi Eliyahu was even involved with this. See below).

2) Although the truth is that no order signed by three rabbinical judges, prohibiting the publication [of information regarding the ruling against Aviner] was brought out in my suit. Anyway, I was careful not to publicize a thing until I saw with my own eyes that Aviner himself publicized the ruling of the Bet Din. Of course, it is impossible to obligate one party to remain silent, when the second party is doing whatever it wants.

3) It is astounding that Aviner dares to use this decision [of the Bet Din], when on the same website, he publicizes the Bet Din's ruling with part of its reasoning, and in fact speaks out regarding this decision in a brief.

4) Of course the Area Bet Din does not have the authority to prohibit of a decision which was signed by three other rabbinical judges, when they themselves want it to be publicized. Incidentally, we are operating under the direction of the rabbinical judges who sat on a panel appointed by Rabb Mordechai Eliyahu.

To Be Continued....